Where do you get your morals from?

[Halbhh]

What do you think people were like in prehistoric times? B

By evidence, reality in the bones showing violent deaths by weapon, depressingly more violent than we wanted them to be....

 

[Mountainmanbob]

Where do you get your morals from?

Holy Spirit
Conscience
Ten Commandments
Bible
Mother and father
Church
Solid preaching

M-Bob

 

[Ken-1122]

Here's the main problem in my opinion. I don't know how anyone can argue that humans have co-operated with neighbours throughout history when there is overwhelming evidence of the exact opposite. Neighbours have been at war and killing each other throughout history, in fact, many groups of people have been very successful in doing so and spreading their seed through the massacre of men and rape of women of conquered neighbours.

In evolutionary terms, spreading your seed through pillage and rape is very successful. Where does the idea that this is wrong come from? Christianity.

I think people underestimate how revolutionary Jesus ideas were for his time. The idea that you should love your enemies, as opposed to fight and dominate them, was foreign. In fact, the reason the Jews denied he was the messiah was because he was not a warlord that raised an army to conquer Israel's enemies.

I believe men of war will worship a God of war; and men of peace will worship a God of peace. I believe Moses was a man of war thus he chose to worship a God of war. By the time Jesus came along, most men were of peace and I believe Jesus was a man of peace and was eventually worshipped by the
men of peace. The problem is Jesus (a God of peace) claimed to be the son of Yahweh the God of war. Unfortunately for the worshippers, they find themselves in a position of having to defend the actions of the God of war when defending their religion against non christians

 

[Halbhh]

I believe men of war will worship a God of war; and men of peace will worship a God of peace. I believe Moses was a man of war thus he chose to worship a God of war. By the time Jesus came along, most men were of peace and I believe Jesus was a man of peace and was eventually worshipped by the
men of peace. The problem is Jesus (a God of peace) claimed to be the son of Yahweh the God of war. Unfortunately for the worshippers, they find themselves in a position of having to defend the actions of the God of war when defending their religion against non christians

If God loves His children...

...then He won't ignore their being burned as sacrifices in fire routinely, or other evils --

Deutetonomy 12:31

But will end such a culture, wipe it out.

And so send everyone there on to the Day of Judgement, where the innocent (children) will be separated from the guilty, and live again, forever.

This is what you called innocently without understanding the "God of war."

More accurate: God of justice and mercy.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What do you think of the archaeological examples from around the world, throughout all time periods, of ancient bones showing death by violent attack?

About the same as what I think of humans today that get into fights and injure or kill eachother.

I'ld also imagine that back in the day, with far less societal organization and no "big brother" technologies with which we can track people (from cell phone GPS chips, to IP addresses, to bank transactions, street cams, DNA tests etc) and much much less "social awareness" and far more primitive moral insight, such things would have been more frequent.

Do you think the reports are slanted or faked somehow, from the forensic archaeology?

No. Do YOU think that humans back in the day only smashed eachothers' skull in?
That mothers ate their babies?
That daddies didn't care about protecting his kids and wife (or wives)?
That tribal warriors didn't try their best to rescue and/or protect the members of the tribe they belonged to?
That tribes didn't have internal systems and procedures to deal with members of the tribe who were in conflict with eachother?

You ask about the bones showing violent death...
What about the bones showing ritual burial, with flowers and jewels?
What about the graves of a man and woman, laying in the position of an everlasting hug?
What about the graves of women, who presumable died during child birth, being burried in a position while holding their dead born baby?

Not only the primitive, but also the 'civilized', such as China, with it's endless wars of sheer conquest and power, while being 'civilized'.

Or the endless executions and wars in medieval Europe, while being "christian".
Seems like it is a problem of all ages and all civilizations, regardless of which religion or lack thereof is dominant there.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I believe men of war will worship a God of war; and men of peace will worship a God of peace. I believe Moses was a man of war thus he chose to worship a God of war. By the time Jesus came along, most men were of peace and I believe Jesus was a man of peace and was eventually worshipped by the
men of peace. The problem is Jesus (a God of peace) claimed to be the son of Yahweh the God of war. Unfortunately for the worshippers, they find themselves in a position of having to defend the actions of the God of war when defending their religion against non christians

Ken-1122, I hate to be the harbinger of bad news. But your theory is more than likely to be a half-truth, at best.

 

[durangodawood]

....I wanted us to be naturally good......

What does this even mean "naturally good"?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I come from the position that people decide what is moral. So when people change what they deem moral or immoral, that is an example of morality changing.

That is a matter of a subjective opinion changing. From n my perspective, you would be saying that morality is a subjective opinion agreed upon by a majority or perhaps a supermajority of people within a culture.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken-1122, I hate to be the harbinger of bad news. But your theory is more than likely to be a half-truth, at best.

That's okay; I'm used to bad news! So where did I go wrong?

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

That is a matter of a subjective opinion changing. From n my perspective, you would be saying that morality is a subjective opinion agreed upon by a majority or perhaps a supermajority of people within a culture.

Not quite; that would be how laws originate; I'm saying morality is a subjective opinion of right vs wrong each person has, and these opinions will vary a little from person to person even though the basics for most may be the same.

 

[holo]

As far as I can tell the theory of evolution has a perfectly good explanation for why we have a sense of morality. Sure, it's kind of depressing since it doesn't confirm what we all tend to feel very deeply: that some things are right or wrong, in and of themselves. Apart from our survival instinct, our sense of justice is perhaps our strongest drive. But then again, they go together, at least evolution wise.

In any case it's a fact that morality itself is evolving, and it looks like apart from the occasional setback (nazi Germany for example), on the whole, morality seems to be getting better and better. What I mean is that who and what we care about seems to be expanding all the time. From caring only about the tribe, or the men of the tribe, we have come to a point where most nations will acknowledge the innate worth and rights of other nations. Women have the same rights as men now, and other groups are following: children, people of other races, even animals. Just consider how much more value we assign to a pig now than, say, a hundred years ago.

I think what drives this expansion of morality is knowledge. When we learn that people of other races are just, well, people of other races (as opposed to animals or degenerates), we will see them as more equal to us and have more compassion with them. Again, same with other groups like the opposite sex, children, the mentally ill, homosexuals, animals.

 

[Ken-1122]

If the Bible contains moral teachings from God, how come the Churches views on the above have changed so dramatically over time? An extreme example is at the height of the Transatlantic Slave Trade, where the Catholic and Protestant Churches were supporting slavery and used the Bible to justify it.

I don't believe the Bible contains moral teachings from God, I believe they contain moral teachings from men claiming to speak for God. History is full of examples of people standing on a pedestal claiming to speak for God. The changing church views you mention is the result of over time different men with different morals standing on that pedestal speaking for God

 

[Halbhh]

What does this even mean "naturally good"?

Good question.

By nature, do we want to do good predominately, even when it's not so easy? Good for good's sake.

Or instead: not so much. ?

What's "good" though?

As Christ worded it:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's okay; I'm used to bad news! So where did I go wrong?

Ken

Ok. Let's take a look.

I believe men of war will worship a God of war; and men of peace will worship a God of peace. I believe Moses was a man of war thus he chose to worship a God of war. By the time Jesus came along, most men were of peace and I believe Jesus was a man of peace and was eventually worshipped by the
men of peace. The problem is Jesus (a God of peace) claimed to be the son of Yahweh the God of war. Unfortunately for the worshippers, they find themselves in a position of having to defend the actions of the God of war when defending their religion against non christians

Well, I do agree with you that each individual person will pretty much see the world as that persons cognitive abilities, geographical placement, relationships and experiences and emotional affinities will cause a person to perceive the world in a way that only he/she can see the world. However, just because human perception is limited in this way doesn't mean that it will in all cases, or for all of the time of that person's life, shape the "kind" of religious motifs that he/she will ultimately ply themselves to.

As for Moses, you're over simplifying the literary figure that we find in the pages of the Bible, and you're likely interpreting his character through the 'lenses' that make up your own perception about the nature of the world. I think there is both war and peace, sin and virtue to be seen in his character: and this can be said of just about all of the figures described (in context) within the Bible, except for Jesus (unless one is so engrained with the currently accepted Moral Matrix that he/she can't she Jesus' character in its context).

As for when Jesus came along, I think that historically speaking, it takes much, much, much more to truly assert that most men were men of "peace" than to think they all just lived jovially, side-by-side because of the Pax Romana. Roman peace really wasn't quite that, especially not for the Jewish people during the time of Jesus.

So, you probably need to acknowledge that our conclusions here are tentative in their objectivity, just as is everyone else's on these same matters.

 

[Halbhh]

About the same as what I think of humans today that get into fights and injure or kill eachother.

I'ld also imagine that back in the day, with far less societal organization and no "big brother" technologies with which we can track people (from cell phone GPS chips, to IP addresses, to bank transactions, street cams, DNA tests etc) and much much less "social awareness" and far more primitive moral insight, such things would have been more frequent.



No. Do YOU think that humans back in the day only smashed eachothers' skull in?
That mothers ate their babies?
That daddies didn't care about protecting his kids and wife (or wives)?
That tribal warriors didn't try their best to rescue and/or protect the members of the tribe they belonged to?
That tribes didn't have internal systems and procedures to deal with members of the tribe who were in conflict with eachother?

You ask about the bones showing violent death...
What about the bones showing ritual burial, with flowers and jewels?
What about the graves of a man and woman, laying in the position of an everlasting hug?
What about the graves of women, who presumable died during child birth, being burried in a position while holding their dead born baby?



Or the endless executions and wars in medieval Europe, while being "christian".
Seems like it is a problem of all ages and all civilizations, regardless of which religion or lack thereof is dominant there.

You've simply stated my own views and knowledge here in several places.

Don't tilt at windmills. Try to find out what's being talked about. We're discussing just how moral, precisely, is human nature. What shade of grey. Light grey or dark grey. By evidence, not a light grey....

 

[PreviouslySeeking...]

Actually, I hate to answer this question. While I believe children may be born with a moral awareness, I believe that society beats it out of them. By the time they are adults, most people are merely preoccupied with securing their needs/wants while putting themselves at the least risk. Whatever "morality" is offered by the most convenient peddler, that will provide them with their desire, is what they accept.

Moraliry and a personal code of ethics should refer to the same thing, but they usually do not. "Morality" is a manufactured commodity, usually as a package deal that matches your demographics. A personal code of ethics is just that - personal. As deep or as shallow as ones critical thinking skills are.

 

[Neogaia777]

We got our morals when we began to have god concepts for the first time, that made certain ones into better men than they were prior to that, (who would sometimes lead and take charge of a group, and/or establish a group) Morals began when they began to conceive of an or the observer or observers with them, who were much greater than they were, that's where I propose morality came from... And perhaps consciousness, to being more than animal...

Before that men were animals, and much worse than animals, cause man without God is the worst kind of animal... After that some men were, are, and will still be animals, but some men will be men, that is, a true man or woman of God, who has exceptional morals and a code of morality that they not only preach, but practice what they preach...

Anyhow, it came along with God concepts or began then if you ask me... When we invented and accountability or accountability partners...

God Bless!

 

[Ken-1122]

Ok. Let's take a look.



Well, I do agree with you that each individual person will pretty much see the world as that persons cognitive abilities, geographical placement, relationships and experiences and emotional affinities will cause a person to perceive the world in a way that only he/she can see the world. However, just because human perception is limited in this way doesn't mean that it will in all cases, or for all of the time of that person's life, shape the "kind" of religious motifs that he/she will ultimately ply themselves to.

So what other factors contribute to the way a person perceives the world and shape their religious views?

As for Moses, you're over simplifying the literary figure that we find in the pages of the Bible, and you're likely interpreting his character through the 'lenses' that make up your own perception about the nature of the world. I think there is both war and peace, sin and virtue to be seen in his character: and this can be said of just about all of the figures described (in context) within the Bible, except for Jesus (unless one is so engrained with the currently accepted Moral Matrix that he/she can't she Jesus' character in its context).

When I spoke of Moses as a “man of war”, I wasn’t implying he was all bad; no good, I was claiming some of his actions that were considered morally justified by the standards of his day are considered atrocious by the standards of today; thus a difference/change in morality between his day and today.

As for when Jesus came along, I think that historically speaking, it takes much, much, much more to truly assert that most men were men of "peace" than to think they all just lived jovially, side-by-side because of the Pax Romana. Roman peace really wasn't quite that, especially not for the Jewish people during the time of Jesus.

I wasn’t suggesting ALL men of Jesus day were men of peace; but I believe his followers were, as well as those who continued to follow his teachings after his death. Do you agree?

 

[Ken-1122]

If God loves His children...

...then He won't ignore their being burned as sacrifices in fire routinely, or other evils --

Deutetonomy 12:31

I didn't say he would!

I But will end such a culture, wipe it out.

And so send everyone there on to the Day of Judgement, where the innocent (children) will be separated from the guilty, and live again, forever.

This is what you called innocently without understanding the "God of war."

More accurate: God of justice and mercy.

It appears you've missed every point I made. My points was not about the God of war or the God of peace, it was about the people who worship the God of war, vs those who worship the God of peace.

 

[durangodawood]

Good question.

By nature, do we want to do good predominately, even when it's not so easy? Good for good's sake.

Or instead: not so much. ?

What's "good" though?

As Christ worded it:

If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

I think we might be becoming naturally good in that sense.